# Thread: Varying algorithyms for the 2x2 Fridrich method?

1. ## Varying algorithyms for the 2x2 Fridrich method?

When looking at Youtube videos and guides online, some of the algorithyms vary from guide to guide.

I was expecting each Fridich guide to be exactly the same as each other. I've also noticed on some guides, that an algorithym for a particular move, will be shorter than the algorithym used for that exact same move on another guide.

Why don't all of the shortest algorithyms that can be used for all moves just all get put together in one standard Fridich method, and for that method to be what everyone uses?

Or am I missing something here? I guess I am, so go easy on me because I'm still new to cubing.

2. I think it also has to be the alg that suites the cuber best for example

these are some of the algs for the permutation of the 3x3 cube

T perm =[R U R' U'] [R' F] [R2 U' R'] U' [R U R' F'
J jerm = [R' U L'] [U2 R U' R' U2] [R L U']
j perm b = [R U R' F'] {[R U R' U'] [R' F] [R2 U' R'] U'}
F perm = [R' U2 R' d'] [R' F'] [R2 U' R' U] [R' F R U' F]
r perm a and b = very slow awont put algs up

these are the algs used for the ajacent swap at the end. For me i perfer the T perm like most cubers which isnt the shortest but it is the fastest
I use the J perm at times but it is reasonable slower

3. Fridyrich is extremely slow foyr 2x2, so that's why noboydy bothers to stayndardize the alygorithms for it. Everyone whyo is eyven the least bit seryious about speedsolving 2x2 will learny sometyhing better, like Ortega (which only hyas like 3 extra algs).

4. I guess I just assumed it'd be the best method since it's supposed to be the best for the 3x3

5. Originally Posted by qqwref
Fridyrich is extremely slow foyr 2x2, so that's why noboydy bothers to stayndardize the alygorithms for it. Everyone whyo is eyven the least bit seryious about speedsolving 2x2 will learny sometyhing better, like Ortega (which only hyas like 3 extra algs).
This...
But commenting on Jedi5412 : I personally use R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L for the adjacent swap

6. R' F R F' R U2 R' U R U2 R'

7. by fridrich for 2x2 i am assuming LBL method? it is not necessarily slow, given that pll skips happen a lot more than ortega. i think it is also a good transition step for CLL since both methods start with building a layer.

why dont they use the same algs? well, because some people learn how to solve 2x2 from their 3x3 knowledge, using no extra knowledge. just like ben posted above, some people who take 2x2 seriously wouldnt use an adj swap PLL, T perm J perm. the alg is much shorter and faster (if practiced).

it is just like 3x3... there are so many things you can do with fridrich as far as customizing your solve. finding your own fingertricks and what algs are the fastest for you is the best way to get fast. some people are not willing to invest time into 2x2, as it does not interest them or they arent as ambitious. hence why we find methods that are catered toward people who understand how to solve a 3x3 but dont want to learn anything new, and methods that are catered toward people who want to break records.

8. u guys know the fastest adjecent swap alg and the vertical swap alg since the y perm takes ages

9. Originally Posted by n00bCube
When looking at Youtube videos and guides online, some of the algorithyms vary from guide to guide.

I was expecting each Fridich guide to be exactly the same as each other. I've also noticed on some guides, that an algorithym for a particular move, will be shorter than the algorithym used for that exact same move on another guide.

Why don't all of the shortest algorithyms that can be used for all moves just all get put together in one standard Fridich method, and for that method to be what everyone uses?

Or am I missing something here? I guess I am, so go easy on me because I'm still new to cubing.
The shortest algorithms aren't necessarily the fastest. I use an 11 move algorithm for the adjacent swap, when I know a 10 move algorithm for it, because I find the 11 move faster. Just use the algorithms you see in the tutorial, then switch to others if you find them faster.

Originally Posted by n00bCube
I guess I just assumed it'd be the best method since it's supposed to be the best for the 3x3
The reason it is very fast for 3x3, but not 2x2, is that because there are less combinations on 2x2, you can do something that takes 2 steps in Fridrich in just 1 using a more advanced 2x2 method, without having to learn hundreds of algorithms.

10. Okay, I guess I could try Ortega, or Guimond (heard that Guimond is supposed to be really fun for some reason).

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•